United States v. Sani-Pine Corp.

153 F.2d 1015, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2005
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 4, 1946·No. No. 2G8·Published

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Defendant argues that the information stated no crime because it did not charge the corporation with “knowingly” or “wilfully” committing the acts. But this statute does not require proof of any awareness of wrongdoing. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280-281, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48.1 In any event, an information pleading in the words of the statute is sufficient. United States v. Groopman, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 782, 785-786; cf, United States v. Leiner, 2 Cir., 143 F. 2d 298, 300.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Sani-Pine Corp., 153 F.2d 1015, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2005 (2d Cir. 1946).

153 F.2d 1015 (United States v. Sani-Pine Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Johnson
221 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1911)
United States v. Balint
258 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court, 1922)
United States v. Dotterweich
320 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1943)
United States v. Leiner
143 F.2d 298 (Second Circuit, 1944)
United States v. Groopman
147 F.2d 782 (Second Circuit, 1945)